General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

s1ippy · 16-11-2020 11:52pm

Sinn féin really are terrible, "wasting 25k of taxpayer money".

Meanwhile,

€5,000 per day (€10m so far) for this wind farm in Galway.

Complete environmental devastation.

That's not the only place being absolutely destroyed by this kind of destructive interference.

Watch this part of the country float off to god knows where.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rooneymobile/status/1327581502763380736?s=20

Just to remind everyone as well that the green party are propping up this coalition.

Oh and

https://twitter.com/TVsCarlKinsella/status/1327960379222339590?s=20

Why is there even a government, having nobody would be better than having this absolute shower. If I were an angry person I think I'd have immense difficulty sleeping by night knowing that they're left get away with everything.

I feel like, if I'm this wound up about it, probably somebody way less calm than me will definitely be losing their mind entirely about it and maybe they'll do something, like Batman. But then I remember that Batman actually goes out of his way to defend the status quo at enormous cost to the public in collateral damage and unnecessary deaths.

Scoundrel · 17-11-2020 10:08pm

The breathtaking arrogance of this government to appoint a clearly compromised ex FF senator to SIPO it is honestly like something out of a farcical banana republic.

roosh · 27-11-2020 9:59am

On the whole Woulfe-Judicial appointment debacle. I understand the point that usually only one name is put to cabinet - even if Brendan Howlin maintains that the other names are sometimes appended - but did Mcentee outline her reasoning for not disclosing the other expressions of interest to the coalition party leaders?

Safehands · 27-11-2020 12:35pm

roosh wrote: »

On the whole Woulfe-Judicial appointment debacle. I understand the point that usually only one name is put to cabinet - even if Brendan Howlin maintains that the other names are sometimes appended - but did Mcentee outline her reasoning for not disclosing the other expressions of interest to the coalition party leaders?

This whole thing is interesting. Not the attendance at Golfgate really, but the fuss about Mr. Woulfe. I am relatively well read, but I honestly could not name any Supreme Court judges. I never considered how they were appointed nor am I qualified to comment on their qualifications for the job. I have always just left that to the Oireachtas. Maybe that is a bit naive.
I do think that this whole Golfgate mess could have been solved by fining everyone who attended the meal (the maximum fine) and removing the hotel's licence for a period. That may have made them think twice before being so arrogant in the future.

roosh · 27-11-2020 12:49pm

Safehands wrote: »

This whole thing is interesting. Not the attendance at Golfgate really, but the fuss about Mr. Woulfe. I am relatively well read, but I honestly could not name any Supreme Court judges. I never considered how they were appointed nor am I qualified to comment on their qualifications for the job. I have always just left that to the Oireachtas. Maybe that is a bit naive.
I do think that this whole Golfgate mess could have been solved by fining everyone who attended the meal (the maximum fine) and removing the hotel's licence for a period. That may have made them think twice before being so arrogant in the future.

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with regard to dealing with the consequences of Golfgate. I'm not sure everyone needed to lose their job over it.

The issue of judicial appointments is definitely the more interesting matter, to come out of it. I'm just wondering what reasoning McEntee gave for not discussing all the notifications of interest with the three party leaders.

I understand that, after informing them of the names, only one name would go to the cabinet, but prior to going to cabinet, she could have discussed ALL of the names (or at least a shortlist) with the party leaders.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe that it was a "jobs for the boys" political appointment, but I haven't heard any reasoning from her as to why only Woulfe's name was recommended to the party leaders, prior to going to cabinet.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 1:17pm

roosh wrote: »

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with regard to dealing with the consequences of Golfgate. I'm not sure everyone needed to lose their job over it.

The issue of judicial appointments is definitely the more interesting matter, to come out of it. I'm just wondering what reasoning McEntee gave for not discussing all the notifications of interest with the three party leaders.

I understand that, after informing them of the names, only one name would go to the cabinet, but prior to going to cabinet, she could have discussed ALL of the names (or at least a shortlist) with the party leaders.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe that it was a "jobs for the boys" political appointment, but I haven't heard any reasoning from her as to why only Woulfe's name was recommended to the party leaders, prior to going to cabinet.

Her reasoning on that was explained, he was the jaab only recommendation.
That is the judiciary themselves recommending him.
OK I get the point about the other candidates and it not being discussed with others, but her explanation of just going with the jaab makes sense as if accepted it was basically a judicial appointment.

roosh · 27-11-2020 1:42pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Her reasoning on that was explained, he was the jaab only recommendation.
That is the judiciary themselves recommending him.
OK I get the point about the other candidates and it not being discussed with others, but her explanation of just going with the jaab makes sense as if accepted it was basically a judicial appointment.

But the other [actual] judges don't apply through JAAB, so there was no possibility that JAAB could recommend them.

If the JAAB "recommendation" was truly a recommendation for the position, then all applicants should go through JAAB.

I think it was Catherine Murphy who said that JAAB is a vetting process to determine if someone is suitable for the position, it is not a recommendation for the position, over and above anyone else. This makes sense if only non-judicial interested parties have to go through JAAB.

EDIT: the other applicants don't have to go through JAAB because they are already vetted by virtue of their experience on the bench.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 1:48pm

roosh wrote: »

But the other [actual] judges don't apply through JAAB, so there was no possibility that JAAB could recommend them.

If the JAAB "recommendation" was truly a recommendation for the position, then all applicants should go through JAAB.

I think it was Catherine Murphy who said that JAAB is a vetting process to determine if someone is suitable for the position, it is not a recommendation for the position, over and above anyone else. This makes sense if only non-judicial interested parties have to go through JAAB.

As I said, i take your point.
But if she or cabinet picks someone else then that can easily be classed as a purely political appointment.
Just imagine for instance if they had picked another candidate and he/she had attended the golf dinner the racket we would be having now as to why the jaab recommendation hadn't been picked.
The golf dinner is really the catalyst for all this and it's political gamesmanship after the fact because of that.

Scoundrel · 27-11-2020 1:52pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Her reasoning on that was explained, he was the jaab only recommendation.
That is the judiciary themselves recommending him.
OK I get the point about the other candidates and it not being discussed with others, but her explanation of just going with the jaab makes sense as if accepted it was basically a judicial appointment.

She also said she went to Leo he said Woulfe would make a good judge I mean that stinks to high heaven like something out of a tinpot dictatorship.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 1:58pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

She also said she went to Leo he said Woulfe would make a good judge I mean that stinks to high heaven like something out of a tinpot dictatorship.

What difference does that make really.
Obviously he was viewed as someone who would make a good judge or he wouldn't have got the jaab recommendation. He is a former attorney General so obviously viewed as a good legal brain too.
But unless you are saying the jaab are influenced by political bias then there is no point in saying that.

roosh · 27-11-2020 2:03pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

As I said, i take your point.
But if she or cabinet picks someone else then that can easily be classed as a purely political appointment.
Just imagine for instance if they had picked another candidate and he/she had attended the golf dinner the racket we would be having now as to why the jaab recommendation hadn't been picked.
The golf dinner is really the catalyst for all this and it's political gamesmanship after the fact because of that.

The reason a JAAB "recommendation" would not have been picked is because the other candidate was a sitting judge.

I think there is an issue with considering the JAAB vetting process as a "recommendation". How can JAAB recommend someone for the position when they don't consider all other applicants?

At best they could recommend one non-judicial applicant over other non-judicial applicants. Is that what they do? Or do they vet all non-judicial applicants and then advise the MoJ which applicants can actually be considered?

If we assume for a second that Woulfe is indeed a political appointment - not too big a stretch - then the only way he can become a supreme court justice is precisely by going though JAAB. All other applicants would be actual sitting judges.

This would mean that purely political appointments must necessarily go through JAAB. It's actually harder to argue that a sitting judge is a purely political appointment, while giving the nod to your former AG and party activist can only be seen as a political appointment, when chosen over sitting judges.

golfball37 · 27-11-2020 2:04pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

What difference does that make really.
Obviously he was viewed as someone who would make a good judge or he wouldn't have got the jaab recommendation. He is a former attorney General so obviously viewed as a good legal brain too.
But unless you are saying the jaab are influenced by political bias then there is no point in saying that.

JAAB only comment on suitability not ability, they certainly don’t make recommendations as to who should be hired/appointed.

roosh · 27-11-2020 2:05pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

What difference does that make really.
Obviously he was viewed as someone who would make a good judge or he wouldn't have got the jaab recommendation. He is a former attorney General so obviously viewed as a good legal brain too.
But unless you are saying the jaab are influenced by political bias then there is no point in saying that.

Do JAAB actually make recommendations or do they just vet applicants?

As in, if there were two applicants would they recommend one over the other or would they simply advise the MoJ if both were suitable candidtates?

roosh · 27-11-2020 2:06pm

golfball37 wrote: »

JAAB only comment on suitability not ability, they certainly don’t make recommendations as to who should be hired/appointed.

That's what I was thinking GB, thank you.

so, if two applicants went through JAAB and both were suitable candidates, then JAAB would inform the MoJ that there were two suitable candidates, as opposed to recommending one of them.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 2:11pm

golfball37 wrote: »

JAAB only comment on suitability not ability, they certainly don’t make recommendations as to who should be hired/appointed.

They said he was suitable so, they only said that of him and I'm sure they had other candidates apply as well so I imagine that's a reccomendation in any man's language.

Scoundrel · 27-11-2020 2:13pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

What difference does that make really.
Obviously he was viewed as someone who would make a good judge or he wouldn't have got the jaab recommendation. He is a former attorney General so obviously viewed as a good legal brain too.
But unless you are saying the jaab are influenced by political bias then there is no point in saying that.

Jesus Christ of course it makes a difference it's pure cronyism not to mention Woulfe is a long term FG activist. JAAB simply said he is suitable it is not a recommendation Leos nod and wink is why he got the job a toddler could see that.

The supreme court is supposed to be free of political influence not somewhere to stick cronies.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 2:17pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

Jesus Christ of course it makes a difference it's pure cronyism not to mention Woulfe is a long term FG activist. JAAB simply said he is suitable it is not a recommendation Leos nod and wink is why he got the job a toddler could see that.

Doesn't matter and it's just gamesmanship as to one's word against the other on that.
If saying someone is suitable, and only saying it of him, isn't a reccomendation then what would you call it?

golfball37 · 27-11-2020 2:18pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

They said he was suitable so, they only said that of him and I'm sure they had other candidates apply as well so I imagine that's a reccomendation in any man's language.

The rest of the candidates were sitting judges. They didn’t need JAAB clearance to say they could do the job of a judge.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 2:33pm

golfball37 wrote: »

The rest of the candidates were sitting judges. They didn’t need JAAB clearance to say they could do the job of a judge.

Wow, that was well figured out.

Bannasidhe · 27-11-2020 2:42pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Her reasoning on that was explained, he was the jaab only recommendation.
That is the judiciary themselves recommending him.
OK I get the point about the other candidates and it not being discussed with others, but her explanation of just going with the jaab makes sense as if accepted it was basically a judicial appointment.

It's been clarified time and time again that JAAB do not 'recommend' - they merely clarify that the applicant has ticked the required boxes in terms of qualification, experience etc. JAAB shortlist the applicants who are not sitting judges - they do not decide who should be appointed.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 2:53pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's been clarified time and time again that JAAB do not 'recommend' - they merely clarify that the applicant has ticked the required boxes in terms of qualification, experience etc. JAAB shortlist the applicants who are not sitting judges - they do not decide who should be appointed.

Who said they did?
Their chosen applicant was Seamus Woulfe, The minister picked him and brought it to cabinet and he was ratified.
No one said anything other than that.
Now if you want to argue after that about whether cabinet or govt should be doing that job that's fine, but as of now, and then, that's their remit.

Bannasidhe · 27-11-2020 3:01pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Who said they did?
Their chosen applicant was Seamus Woulfe, The minister picked him and brought it to cabinet and he was ratified.
No one said anything other than that.
Now if you want to argue after that about whether cabinet or govt should be doing that job that's fine, but as of now, and then, that's their remit.

No, their chosen applicant was not Woulf - They said Woulf met the criteria to be considered as a candidate alongside any applicants from within the sitting judiciary.

If things worked the way you are claiming a non-judicial applicant would always take preference over a judicial applicant simply by coming through the JAAB process.
That's nonsense even in an appointment system that needs urgent reform.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 3:04pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No, their chosen applicant was not Woulf - They said Woulf met the criteria to be considered as a candidate alongside any applicants from within the sitting judiciary.

If things worked the way you are claiming a non-judicial applicant would always take preference over a judicial applicant simply by coming through the JAAB process.
That's nonsense even in an appointment system that needs urgent reform.

Again, he was they're only chosen applicant. The minister decided he was the best applicant. She considered alll applicants.

As I said if you want to talk reform that's OK, but the system currently in place was used.

roosh · 27-11-2020 3:09pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

They said he was suitable so, they only said that of him and I'm sure they had other candidates apply as well so I imagine that's a reccomendation in any man's language.

How sure are you that they had other candidates? Non-judicial applicants for the position of supreme court judge is a pretty niche market I would imagine.

Even if they did have other candidates and JAAB said only he was suitable, this still wouldn't be a recommendation for a job. Just as Garda vetting of teachers isn't a recommendation for a job, it simply means that there is nothing in their criminal history that rules them out.

Even if we assume that JAAB had other applicants and found only Woulfe to be suitable, that would simply mean that the other candidates had something that ruled them out.

The acid test of whether JAAB actually provides recommendations would be where they have more than one candidate who would be suitable* and they recommend one candidate over the other. If it is the case where there are two suitable candidates, both names are put passed to the MoJ as being suitable, then JAAB don't make recommendations. AFAIA the latter is the what JAAB actually does.

* Two suitable candidates would be the case where, in the absence of the other candidate, either candidate would be put forward.

roosh · 27-11-2020 3:11pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Doesn't matter and it's just gamesmanship as to one's word against the other on that.
If saying someone is suitable, and only saying it of him, isn't a reccomendation then what would you call it?

You would call it vetting, not a recommendation.

If only one teacher applies for a job in a rural school and the Garda vetting service says that they are suitable to work with kids, that isn't a recommendation to the school to hire them.

Bannasidhe · 27-11-2020 3:14pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Again, he was they're only chosen applicant. The minister decided he was the best applicant. She considered alll applicants.

As I said if you want to talk reform that's OK, but the system currently in place was used.

He was the only application shortlisted by JAAB - he was far from being the only applicant.
For the last time the fact that he was the only applicate whose name was put forward by JAAB mean he was the only person who applied via JAAB who fit the criteria to be put forward as a candidate [edit to add - he may or may not have been the only person to apply this way]. This does not mean he was 'chosen' or 'recommended' - it means he was short-listed.
The other applicants already met the criteria to be members of the judiciary - we know this as they are sitting judges.

Selected by a Minister who stated she used her own criteria so how can it be the system that is 'currently in place' unless 'the system that is currently in place' = whatever the Minister of Justice decides at the time based on their own individual selection process known only to themselves and not quantifiable by any objective standards.

roosh · 27-11-2020 3:15pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Again, he was they're only chosen applicant. The minister decided he was the best applicant. She considered alll applicants.

As I said if you want to talk reform that's OK, but the system currently in place was used.

They don't choose an applicant. They vet all applicants for suitability. If there were more than one suitable candidate then they would have put forward more than one name; they would not have chosen Woulfe over another suitable candidate, because that is not what they do.

When teachers get vetted by the Gardai for a job application, the results of the Garda vetting process aren't an endorsement of the candidate, even when only one candidate is deemed suitable. It isn't a recommendation by the Gardai that the school should hire the teacher.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 3:27pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He was the only application shortlisted by JAAB - he was far from being the only applicant.
For the last time the fact that he was the only applicate whose name was put forward by JAAB mean he was the only person who applied via JAAB who fit the criteria to be put forward as a candidate [edit to add - he may or may not have been the only person to apply this way]. This does not mean he was 'chosen' or 'recommended' - it means he was short-listed.
The other applicants already met the criteria to be members of the judiciary - we know this as they are sitting judges.

Selected by a Minister who stated she used her own criteria so how can it be the system that is 'currently in place' unless 'the system that is currently in place' = whatever the Minister of Justice decides at the time based on their own individual selection process known only to themselves and not quantifiable by any objective standards.

It's in her remit as it stands to do that, she brought his name to cabinet and he was, approved.
As I said that's the system in place.
Does it need reforming, probably yes.
But you'd have to be clear as to what process would be used and what guarantees no bias is availed of even then.
Who in the country hasn't a, stake in the judicial process?
It's hard to find absolute neutrality in any situation and in any process for judicial appointments.
The current political process on this needs to move on from here with a clear road map of how supreme Court judges can be appointed in a non bias way if it is believed that politics is biased on judicial appointments and their particular politics.
Foreign judges, committees, what?
There is no body in Ireland that can't be linked in one way or another to politics.
The whole argument brought forward by the opposition is politically biased in itself and a mere point scoring exercise.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 3:29pm

roosh wrote: »

They don't choose an applicant. They vet all applicants for suitability. If there were more than one suitable candidate then they would have put forward more than one name; they would not have chosen Woulfe over another suitable candidate, because that is not what they do.

When teachers get vetted by the Gardai for a job application, the results of the Garda vetting process aren't an endorsement of the candidate, even when only one candidate is deemed suitable. It isn't a recommendation by the Gardai that the school should hire the teacher.

The Garda aren't teachers, the jaab is a judicial body. No comparison there.

roosh · 27-11-2020 3:45pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's in her remit as it stands to do that, she brought his name to cabinet and he was, approved.

The issue is why she didn't bring ALL the names to the coalition party leaders, before submitting only Woulfe's name to cabinet.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The Garda aren't teachers, the jaab is a judicial body. No comparison there.

The comparison is in the nature of the process, not those who carry it out. In both cases it is a vetting process, not a process of recommendation.

Of course, the Gardai could make a recommendation to the schools, if they so choose; that they are not teachers does not preclude this. The point is that a vetting process is not a process of recommendation.

Again, if JAAB are obliged to put forward all names of those non-judicial applicants, who would be suitable, then theirs is not a recommendation. This is true even when only one candidate is deemed to be suitable.

Even if JAAB did make recommendations, theirs would only be a recommendation from the non-judicial pool of applicants and could not be taken as a recommendation over and above other applicants, who had not gone through the JAAB vetting process.

In which case McEntee should have brought ALL the names to the coalition party leaders BEFORE submitting a name to cabinet.

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments